01 · 2 legs
Safe
- Double chance Waalwijk or draw (X2)61%
- Over 1.5 goals80%
Eerste Divisie16°10 km/h
Läs på svenskaAnna Karlsson · · A data-driven preview · How the predictions work
TEXT: Roda and Waalwijk are neck-and-neck, with probabilities giving a slight edge to the visitors at 37% compared to the hosts' 36%. Yet, Roda's unbeaten run over five matches offers a strong counter-narrative against Waalwijk's own seven-match streak without a loss. The model's numbers suggest a tight contest where both sides are expected to find the net, with a 61% likelihood of both teams scoring and a 58% chance of surpassing 2.5 total goals.
Interestingly, while Roda holds a marginal points lead and slightly better xPoints, Waalwijk's relentless scoring in 28 consecutive league fixtures paints a picture of consistency and threat upfront. The head-to-head record, given its small sample size of just two encounters, loses weight compared to more substantive metrics like expected goals and style of play. Roda's possession control faces the challenge of Waalwijk's possession and high-press approach, potentially tilting the field slightly in favor of the visitors if they can disrupt effectively.
Considering the probabilities and xG figures, a 1-1 draw emerges as the most plausible outcome, though the slight lean towards Waalwijk suggests a potential 1-2 scoreline. For those eyeing value, RKC Waalwijk's model lean and their remarkable scoring consistency make them the sharper angle to consider.
01 · 2 legs
02 · 3 legs
03 · 4 legs
No odds available yet.
Head-to-head based on Eerste Divisie data since 2023.
Solid line = created (xG), dashed = conceded (xGA).
Last 5 matches. Circle size = pass volume, line width = combinations between players. Attacking left to right.
The same network weighted by offensive threat (xT): circle size = threat created by the player, line width = threat of the combinations. Last 5 matches, attacking left to right.
| Performance | Roda | Waalwijk |
|---|---|---|
| Points | 11 | 10 |
| xPoints | 10.1 | 7.6 |
| xG per match | 1.6 | 1.4 |
| xGA per match | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| xG within 8s of winning the ball | 0.18 | 0.15 |
| xGA within 8s of losing the ball | 0.11 | 0.33 |
| Playing style | Roda | Waalwijk |
|---|---|---|
| Build-up efficiency | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Field tilt | 0.41 | 0.64 |
| xT per match | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| xTA per match | 1.1 | 1 |
| Won balls, offensive half | 22 | 25 |
| Pressing intensity | 0.22 | 0.23 |
| Pressing efficiency | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Pressing efficiency, offensive half | 0.25 | 0.28 |
| Entries into the box per match | 12 | 20 |
| Entries into the box against | 13 | 10 |
| Pass completion % | 0.76 | 0.77 |
| Pass completion % under pressure | 0.72 | 0.73 |
| Passes per match | 355 | 372 |
| Passes against per match | 352 | 327 |
| Switches of play per match | 20.1 | 27.3 |
| Long balls per match | 31 | 38 |
| Set pieces | Roda | Waalwijk |
|---|---|---|
| xG from free kicks | 0.06 | 0.07 |
| Corners per match | 4.5 | 3.7 |
| Corners against per match | 3.5 | 4.8 |
| xG per corner | 0.04 | 0.02 |
| xGA per corner against | 0.05 | 0.02 |
| First touch, offensive corners % | 0.41 | 0.5 |
| First touch, defensive corners % | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| Other | Roda | Waalwijk |
|---|---|---|
| Throw-in control | 0.71 | 0.72 |
| The goalkeepers | Justin Treichel (Roda) | Niek Schiks (Waalwijk) |
|---|---|---|
| Saves | 22 | 19 |
| Save % | 85% | 70% |
| xG prevented | 71% | 55% |
| Claims | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
The model gives Waalwijk a 37% win probability. Full 1X2 picture: Roda 36%, draw 27%, Waalwijk 37%.
The model's most likely final score is 1-1 at 12% probability.
The model rates over 2.5 goals at 58% and under at 42%.
The probability of both teams scoring is 61% according to the model.
The same rules as the bookmakers’ builders: legs that contradict or already follow from your slip cannot be combined — for example correct score 2–1 with under 2.5 goals. The difference is that we don’t look the rules up in a table; we compute them straight from the score matrix.
Predictions come from PlaymakerAI's match model and reflect the model's assessment — not betting advice. Gamble responsibly.